I'm an alcoholic

fie, xpost

hoos, your're gonna turn into forks, do with that knowledge what you will

celebrate and live happily ime/imo

hey hoos, how do u feel abt pottery

wouldn't trust it as far as he could throw it

teeehee

best of luck, hoos.

hey hoos, how do u feel abt pottery

― difficult-difficult lemon-difficult (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, June 18, 2015 3:35 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

um i dunno...its cool to put stuff in?

that's the spirit

or, you know, lack thereof

haa

today I spent an hour driving my dad around Baltimore, helping him look for his car, which he misplaced while blackout drunk. he hasn't had a drink in 2 days, this was the thing that finally shook him up about how bad his drinking had gotten. he quit cigars successfully a few months ago so i have hope. trying to get him to consider going to AA. i really have no idea where his car could be, though.

hopefully it gets towed eventually? I'd just keep calling the police's towed vehicles phone # or w/e and be hopeful

Sorry to be flippant about an actual serious situation, but: some dude, where's my car

http://imallvirtual.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Dude-Wheres-My-Car.jpg

I had a pal who called the police to report his car stolen, but when they found it 'abandoned in a diner parking lot,' the friend pieced together a narrative from stuff he had found (like a matchbook from the diner in his jacket pocket at home) and realized in some horror that he had parked it there during a full drunken blackout where he drove to the diner. It freaked him out enough to clean him up for a while, and he never got that bad again.

yeah sounds pretty similar to my dad's situation. he woke up the next morning with an uneaten pizza in the kitchen (from a place that doesn't deliver), so that's the only real indication of what he did that night, he remembers nothing.

he's called the towing yards and no dice...i guess you can tell the police about a missing vehicle even if it's not stolen or towed, right?

that sucks man. and yeah, if you let the cops know it's been "Stolen", you always have the out of saying dad simply misplaced it later. worst case scenario, you have to pay to get it out of police impound.

This recent Atlantic piece🔗 is an example.

Enjoying this so far, thanks for sharing

we found out where my dad's car was towed! now on with that whole sobriety thing.

yay! and best of luck

Im up to 3 beers a night. They are my primary source of carbs.

If you believe "A History of the World in Six Glasses," beer started out as liquid bread. Indeed, the origins of agriculture, bread, and beer are so intertwined (or so goes this theory) that the first breads were basically just a way to store the ingredients of beer - then someone figured out that it would be a decent foodstuff on its own. So anthropologically speaking, bread is just a solid form of beer and beer is just a liquid form of bread.

Of course, this is probably complete hooey (as so many of those "history seen through the lens of X" books are). I know a guy who got through a semester abroad by realizing that his meal plan could get him either a paltry meal, or a decent amount of stout - and he almost always chose the stout as both more filling and more caloric than the food.

Exactly three drinks a day will not kill you - it's probably not enough to get you drunk (unless you weigh like 90 pounds). The problem is that no alcoholic can always stop at exactly three.

My own drinking, historically, is not far off from that - almost never drinking to drunkenness, but having a couple drinks almost every day. Do this for 25 years and the result is Olympic-level tolerance.

*Perhaps* it's better to drink three beers every night than nothing all week, and then a 21-drink Saturday night binge. But those aren't the only two choices, and I am pretty sure neither of those patterns is very healthy.

Exactly three drinks a day will not kill you - it's probably not enough to get you drunk (unless you weigh like 90 pounds).

If I drink 3 beers I feel kind of fucked up and won't drive, and I weigh 220 or so. My wife who weighs substantially less can drink more and be fine which neither of us understand.

The problem is that no alcoholic can always stop at exactly three.

This is the thing that I didn't really get until a family member got sober and I talked to him about it. To me it's so easy, like at some point I know that if I have another drink I'm going to feel shitty tonight and hungover all day tomorrow and there's no point in doing so and I call it a night. He was incapable of NOT continuing to drink until he passed out or there was nothing left, at which time he would try to find more or do dumber things like cocaine.

He is an incredibly smart, incredibly well read guy with a PhD in philosophy and is also a militant atheist who knows more about religion than most people I know, and he did AA and was fine with it. I think a lot depends on where you are, and he was in a big enough city that he was able to find meetings attended by a bunch of musicians, DJs, skateboarders, tattoo artists, crust punks, metalheads, and so on so he didn't feel out of place or self conscious about not being religious. He, and most of the others, equated the "higher power" with whatever it was that they were unable to control or understand that drove them to drink.

It really did wonders for him, and he was pretty hardcore into it for a couple of years (I went to a meeting with him once which was kind of fascinating), almost like a replacement addiction, but I think only goes to meetings once in a while if he's stressed out or feeling low.

I guess what I'm saying is that if he can get past or rationalize the "higher power" thing, anyone probably can because I know few people who are as actively hostile to the idea of the supernatural as he is. And again, in big cities there are definitely meetings that cater to particular groups of more like-minded people.

Good luck though, whatever you do.

Sure but be careful: what "drove them to drink" can be a red herring, as I understand current received wisdom on addiction.

People frequently point to the shit they've been through as if it explains why they drink or take drugs or whatever. But plenty of people go through the same amount of shit (even, in some cases, lots more shit) without chemical dependency becoming a problem for them.

Indeed, you can drink quite a lot and not be an alcoholic. There's traditionally a distinction between a heavy drinker/problem drinker (who may down heroic amounts of hooch, and then do stupid things, but who is not chemically dependent) and an alcoholic (who may drink less, but whose body needs it more).

If AA feels right for your relative, great. If a different person prefers a different approach, that's great too.

Hey SD, best of luck to your dad. If you ever need to talk about being an adult kid of an alcoholic, well, I have way more experience than I'd like.

thanks

i blacked out for the first time ever like two weeks ago :\

it's really not fun.

There's traditionally a distinction between a heavy drinker/problem drinker (who may down heroic amounts of hooch, and then do stupid things, but who is not chemically dependent) and an alcoholic (who may drink less, but whose body needs it more).

Honestly I really don't know a whole lot about the mechanics of alcoholism/addiction despite it being prevalent in both my and my wife's families. In this particular situation there was no detox involved, just a confrontation from friends and family and a realization that his behavior had become a problem and he was unable to fix it without support from others. Can / does heavy drinking inevitably become a chemical dependency? Do AA or other programs make a distinction once the immediate medical situation is under control? I really don't know.

I do know that my father hates AA with a passion, mostly due to it not doing a thing to help his own father quit drinking so I understand it isn't right for everyone. I just often see the "higher power" thing cited as a reason for avoiding or dismissing it and my very small sample size was able to ignore this concern and had a positive outcome.

joygoat, my father is both an alcoholic (about 40 years sober) and a pretty well-respected alcoholism therapist / administrator of treatment programs / expert in the rehab field. I think his stance would be roughly as follows:

There is a group of people who are disposed (probably genetically) to be chemically dependent. Their bodies crave a substance (in this case, alcohol) out of all proportion. They cannot control these cravings, so their drinking is not a moral weakness but rather a disease. These people should not drink, because if they drink at all their bodies will want more next time, and still more the next time, etc. They have a physical addiction that entails a deadly spiral of diminishing returns.

What these people need to do is stop drinking immediately - and then continue to "actively not-drink" for the rest of their lives. This may require pretty much constant vigilance, because slipping a little tends to lead to slipping a lot.

Okay.

Then there are people who drink heavily, but are not necessarily chemically dependent. They may never get a chance to find whether they're chemically dependent (alcoholic) or not. Partly because they live in an alcohol-soaked culture (as does everyone in the West). In our culture, the most hospitable, civilized, and social thing you can do is offer someone a drink. Someone comes over to your house for dinner, and they bring a bottle of wine. You go to your bother-in-law's house to watch the football game, and you bring some beers. You want to have sex with someone? Start by buying them a drink. You go into a restaurant and the server comes by and asks you what you want to drink.

Most of the people in Group 1 and a goodly proportion of the people in Group 2 will end up doing deeply stupid things under the influence. They will vomit in inappropriate places; they will crash cars and hurt people; they will lose jobs, houses, wives; they will die miserable and alone.

The trouble is that Group 2 includes people who ought to be in Group 1, but also people who are just drunkards with poor self-control. Those people should probably cut back. And they should only drink in safe situations (designated drivers, rooms full of soft furniture, plenty of hydration, no vulnerable ex-girlfriends around). But moderation is probably possible for them.

I don't believe heavy drinking can "become" chemical dependency any more than you can give yourself AIDS. You either have it or you don't.

Non-chemically-dependent heavy drinkers may have a very difficult time slowing down. They may even suspect that they're addicted. But that's partly because they've never really tried not drinking, and partly because we live in a culture where it's almost weird to not drink. Indeed, in some situations you call attention to yourself if you decline.

Afterthought: some alcoholics don't even drink all that much, it's just that their drinking is disordered. Secretive... anxious... mandatory for rudimentary functioning. (1990s PSA: "If you need a drink to be social, that's not social drinking.")

At the same time, some heavy drinkers can do a hell of a lot of drinking without affecting their lives negatively. If you had a heroic amount of self-control you could probably down three beers a night and still be a good parent, spouse, friend, employee, and citizen. You might fall asleep in front of the TV every now and then, but if you don't beat your wife, lose your job, crash your car, or remove your pants at the office, perhaps you're not harming anyone.

At the same time, some heavy drinkers can do a hell of a lot of drinking without affecting their lives negatively. If you had a heroic amount of self-control you could probably down three beers a night and still be a good parent, spouse, friend, employee, and citizen. You might fall asleep in front of the TV every now and then, but if you don't beat your wife, lose your job, crash your car, or remove your pants at the office, perhaps you're not harming anyone.

― Ye Mad Puffin, Saturday, June 20, 2015 8:12 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is what an ex gf told me a couple of years ago--she said I wasn't an alcoholic because, even if I was drinking to excess every night, it didn't seem to be harming my life significantly, so there were no consequences that I was ignoring to continue drinking.

Had my first drink of the week last night. It made me inordinately sleepy, and I woke up with something of a headache. Sheesh.

good posts puffin

she said I wasn't an alcoholic because, even if I was drinking to excess every night

Not only may this be true, but from what you've revealed of yourself on ILX across the years, it is likely to be true, in Ye Mad Puffin's sense that you are probably not chemically dependent. However, if you have been drinking to excess every night for long periods, you have developed a de facto dependence on alcohol. It is good to back off, consciously and deliberately, so you can start using other methods for getting through your days and nights, ones that have a less deleterious effects on your system.

Glad to hear you are making progress.

Echoing Aimless - your ex-gf may have been right, but you are also right to cut back.

Excessive drinking may be habitual, escapist, and unhealthful, without necessarily being addictive.

Some people's beef with AA is that it treats both kinds of drinking as the same, and gives the same prescription for both. Another common criticism of AA is that in AA terms, anyone who thinks they're an alcoholic is an alcoholic. And anyone who doesn't think they're an alcoholic is in denial, so in practical terms everyone's an alcoholic and they should all be in AA.

Last night, on a long car ride to a bus station, same ex-gf gave me the long pitch for why she thought "SMART" & the CBT-driven approach weren't gonna work for me: "you need someone [a sponsor] who's been through this before to go through this with you." Proceeded to evangelize the 12 steps for an hour as we went down the highway. I tried to listen gamely, but she's deep in--been in the program for near 10 years--and there's no brook for backtalk.

I think I'll stick with my approach, at least for now.

it really sounds like a viable option, hoos. what really turned me off aa was the same kind of "we're all sinners here saved by the grace of god" vibe that is something i have to avoid even more than alcohol because of my rotten experiences with it. the atlantic article posits it as something culturally unique to the u.s. which is probably true. personally i think it's an addiction in its own right.

As long as you are thoroughly convinced that this is a step you need to take and you keep that thought firmly in the forefront of your mind, it will succeed for you. When you find yourself rationalizing, beware.

Addiction medicine in this country is horrendous, but improving.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/the-irrationality-of-alcoholics-anonymous/386255/

Everybody should be getting Naltrexone and advised about the Sinclair method.

Well ok not "everybody" but you get it

Thanks for this, Tom. I'm definitely gonna look into it.

If you believe "A History of the World in Six Glasses," beer started out as liquid bread. Indeed, the origins of agriculture, bread, and beer are so intertwined (or so goes this theory) that the first breads were basically just a way to store the ingredients of beer - then someone figured out that it would be a decent foodstuff on its own. So anthropologically speaking, bread is just a solid form of beer and beer is just a liquid form of bread.

Of course, this is probably complete hooey (as so many of those "history seen through the lens of X" books are). I know a guy who got through a semester abroad by realizing that his meal plan could get him either a paltry meal, or a decent amount of stout - and he almost always chose the stout as both more filling and more caloric than the food.

I recall Braudel in Civilization & Capitalism: Structures of Everyday Life discussing tendency of beer to substitute for bread in times of shortage? but I destroyed the book to make fun poem collages so can't look it up now :/

... sorry, a bit off-topic there
: :
/ /

I don't believe heavy drinking can "become" chemical dependency - can't it though? Alcohol is a drug and if someone is drinking extremely high levels of it their body will need it to function and they'll become violently ill if they don't have it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that alcohol withdrawal is one of the few withdrawals that can actually kill a person. I guess maybe you're saying that those in the second category you were describing can't become genetically predisposed like the first through heavy drinking but if they're drinking enough for any reason then they can become chemically dependent on it.

Right, you can't drink yourself into genetic predisposition to chemical dependency but you can, chronically, drink yourself into chemical dependency?

I think that you can, yes.

you can

I think I started to feel the beginnings of that a few weeks ago, when I woke up, went to work, *didn't* drink, and was hit with nausea & shakes & sweating by the time I sat down at my desk.

gbx what are your thoughts on naltrexone? obv I can Pubmed to my heart's content, but interested in your opinion specifically y'know.

Right, you can't drink yourself into genetic predisposition to chemical dependency but you can, chronically, drink yourself into chemical dependency?

yes duh

Substitute any drug known to be addictive, not having a predisposition ≠ immunity to eg crack